Talk:History of domes in South Asia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of South Asian domes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian subcontinent nonsense[edit]

@Highpeaks35: You have been warned by several people about changing "South Asia" here there and everywhere to "Indian subcontinent." Your excuse that "South Asia" includes Afghanistan and therefore pages that do not include something specific to Afghanistan cannot correctly be called " ... South Asia" is an incorrect one. There is no such commonly accepted distinction. You were informed by admin @RegentsPark: on your user talk page that "South Asia" is the correct usage. This means that not only should you not be changing "South Asia" to "Indian subcontinent" henceforth, but also that you should be undoing your previous errors when given the opportunity. It is inexcusable that you have blithely made several recent edits without undoing the damage have already done. It is not my job to clean up after you. Also, the preposition "in" typically does not go with (sub) continent. Remember "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent ..." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler, I think Highpeaks35 is clean as far as this article goes. The article was already using Indian subcontinent and, from what I can see, they were merely cleaning up the references and adding clarifications. --regentspark (comment) 17:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark: I mean he himself changed "South Asian" to "Indian subcontinent" in this page move in December 2018. He clearly understands, now in retrospect, that this was incorrect. He has been making all sorts of edits in the article, but hasn't fixed the page name. This is happening on dozens of pages. If it is not him, it is mysterious IPs which appear in conjunction with him, many of which have been blocked, ... I mean this is truly beyond the pale. And then he is relentlessly stuffing Hinduism-Buddhism-promotion nonsense everywhere. A stupa, usually a solid structure with some relics buried and sometimes with a tunnel running in, is not a dome, which is a hollow upper hemisphere. The Roman arch was not there in pre-Islamic India, what are the chances that a dome was. I'm frustrated at the damage that is being done to Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler&fowler, I did not add Hindu-Buddhism to that article, check the location and users who did it. Unless you are stating I can teleport myself from Southeast Asia, Indian subcontinent, West Asia to N. America? --They had terrible grammar I just copy-edited it. Now you are going moving close into WP:NPA. Even after my apology, you are bullying me. Unacceptable. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]
You are the one who changed the name from South Asian to Indian subcontinent. You have been told recently about correct usage. You have since then made edits to this page, but have done nothing about the page's name, for which you alone are responsible. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is most asinine logic on the planet. The change happened before I even knew you. No one, I mean no one, disputed this change for the last 6 months. Why should I change it? The onus is on you. RegentsPark, please let me know how I should move forward with this bullying by Fowler. I tried, I even apologized, but this user clearly is bulling me over their allergy to a valid term. I am done with this user. The user does not understand WP:Compromise, only my way or the highway. Let me know what actions I can take. Clearly, the user moved close to WP:NPA and bullying. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]
You are aware of correct usage now. It has nothing to do with me. You were informed per your own query on your talk page by two admins on April 7 and 8, 2019 (see here). You have certainly been aware of your earlier error since April 8th. You have however not bothered to correct the error even though you have made several edits to this (i.e. History of domes .. pageP) between April 17, 2019 and April 22, 2019. This is not the only page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler, I do not know any wiki policy which states "Indian subcontinent" is invalid. Nor is there a policy which states a non-disputed content should be reversed back. You are making stuff up as you see fit. Regardless, most of the references in this article uses "India". South Asia here is more WP:OR, honestly, it should be changed to "India" (since most references uses "India"). (Highpeaks35 (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

This page began life as a section of the Dome page, called South Asian and Mughal Domes in 2010. In 2015 that section was split-off to create the "History of South Asian and Mughal Domes" in this edit, which the top of this page proclaims as well. Later in 2015, the principal editor of the Dome page, @AmateurEditor:, changed the name to "History of South Asian Domes," in this edit. To such a page, with a nine-year history of "South Asia(n)" in its title, you @Highpeaks35: came along and on December 6, 2018, in this edit, changed the name to "History of Domes in the Indian subcontinent," with edit summary, "(Highpeaks35 moved page History of South Asian domes to History of domes in the Indian subcontinent: Improve accuracy; not related to Afghanistan )," marking as "minor" edit, and discussing it nowhere on this talk page. On 7th and 8th April, 2019 two admins told you on your talk page that in their opinion, there was no reason to change "South Asia" to "Indian subcontinent" as I've already indicated above. You tell me, how am I to make sense of your attempting to Wikilawyer through the evidence of precedence and administrative opinion? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My Lord, sorry to bother you. Can you assist with this? You are much more knowledge about sourcing than me. What I can see: the sources clearly point to "History of domes in India"; and below is my reasons "History of South Asian domes", which was the name I originally changed here does not meet Wikipedia policies.

  1. The vast majority of the sources clearly mentions "India", which meets WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RS. Sources are paramount.
  2. The vast majority, if not all, of the content, is about the area making up present-day India, or at best pre-partitioned India. South Asia here is WP:FRINGE.
  3. There is no such thing as "South Asian domes" which was the original name here. It is clear WP:OR.
  4. Fowler&fowler main claim is - it is the name used for almost a decade. I thought Wikipedia has no deadline, per WP:NODEADLINE.

As mentioned, per my statements above: "History of domes in India" meets most, if not all, Wikipedia policy and criteria. As such, can you look into this and the sources? Move to RFC to end this? Also, if you don't have time or have any reservations, can you point to someone who has expertise in RFC and sources? (Highpeaks35 (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

  • Just because of Frowler's disruptive editing, i had to sign in. Hammy0007 (talk) 02:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have saved all my edits in this version, which includes the long-standing consensus version of the lead that was added by user:AmateurEditor, the principal editor of the Dome page in 2015. It includes a section on Pakistan, as well as scholarly sources, many of which use the expression "South Asia." Contrast these sources with the unreliable ones added by the IP, who is now a red-linked user. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hammy0007: Could you please tell us what exactly Aurel Stein says about the "Gumbatona swat dome" (the subject of the Google Book search) in your restored edit:
{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com.my/books?id=cIRYb1QdI4kC&q=Gumbatona+swat+dome&dq=Gumbatona+swat+dome&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj0rIbeo5jhAhWJ7XMBHR7JBgIQ6AEIKjAA|title=On Alexander's Track to the Indus: Personal Narrative of Explorations on the North-West Frontier of India Carried Out Under the Orders of H. M. Indian Government|last=Stein|first=Sir Aurel|date=1974|publisher=Ares Publishers|isbn=9780890050361|language=en}}
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist rains of CumbatOtia..-After more heavy rain during the even* ing and night the weather cleared sufficiently to permit of a move up the main valley. While our camp was sent on to Blr-kSf I proceeded from the village of Gumtai to cross the wide belt of Hooded rice fields between which the Swat river flows in several interlacing beds. In order to visit the ruins reported at the small hamlet of Gumbatuna. As the name, the 1 domes had led me to expect, I found there a group of ruined Buddhist Stupas nestling in a picturesque nook of the hillside which rises on the river’s left hank close above the northern¬ most of its branches. On an artificially widened small plateau, some SO feet above the alluvial flat, there rises a large but much injured Stupa (Fig. 3), By its side stands a massive square base badly broken which may have carried a Yilium, while the remains of two small Stupas could be traced to the north and south-east of the large oue. The main StGpa of which PL 2 shows a aketch plan and section has the usual three bases, the lowest measuring 52 feet square, and a dome 34 feet in diameter. The total height when intact must have exceeded 45 feet. This Stupa, like also, the rest of the structures had been burrowed into, probably more than once. It had been cut all through from the east and a shaft 8 feet wide sunk down the centre from the top. In spite of the ravages of time and the hand of man, layers of hard cement-like pla ter still survived in places on the surface of the dome and drum.

Hammy0007 (talk) 11:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hammy0007: Could you kindly remove the misprints and give us a page number? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
here you go another source

The area around Barikot contains many Buddhist sanctuaries, whose remains, even if heavily looted, still dominates a unique archaeological landscape. The great sanctuary of Gumbat, the only double domed Gandharan monument in existence was in danger of collapsing.

page 10 The New Swat Archaeological Museum: Construction activities in Swat district (2011-2013) Khyber-Pakthunkhwa, Pakistan
  • (ec)I'm kind of busy in rl and can't sort through all this but here are a few comments. Everyone, a dose of AGF would be helpful here. Fowler, I looked through highpeaks recent edits and don't see them changing South Asia to Indian Subcontinent and, imo, we should appreciate their restraint. Also, and this is apropos the quotes above, should we be using traveler accounts from long ago in an article about an architectural feature? Surely there are modern scholars who address the issue of domes in medieval and ancient India. --regentspark (comment) 11:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist ruins of Gumbatona..-After more heavy rain during the evening and night the weather cleared sufficiently to permit of a move up the main valley. While our camp was sent on to Barikot I proceeded from the village of Gurutai to cross the wide belt of flooded rice fields between which the Swat river flows in several interlacing beds. In order to visit the ruins reported at the small hamlet of Gumbatuna. As the name, the domes had led me to expect, I found there a group of ruined Buddhist Stupas nestling in a picturesque nook of the hillside which rises on the river’s left hank close above the northern¬ most of its branches. On an artificially widened small plateau, some 8O feet above the alluvial flat, there rises a large but much injured Stupa (Fig. 3), By its side stands a massive square base badly broken which may have carried a Vihara, while the remains of two small Stupas could be traced to the north and south-east of the large oue. The main Stupa of which PL 2 shows a sketch plan and section has the usual three bases, the lowest measuring 52 feet square, and a dome 34 feet in diameter. The total height when intact must have exceeded 45 feet. This Stupa, like also, the rest of the structures had been burrowed into, probably more than once. It had been cut all through from the east and a shaft 8 feet wide sunk down the centre from the top. In spite of the ravages of time and the hand of man, layers of hard cement-like plaster still survived in places on the surface of the dome and drum.

page 27 Hammy0007 (talk) 11:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammy0007: So, it is a stupa. And on page 19, Aurel Stein says,

... I left the road in a southerly direction in order to visit and survey the fairly preserved ruin of a Stupa or Buddhist relic tower in the small secluded glen of Top-dara. The frontispiece shows this monument of Buddhist devotion, erected like all other Stupas of this region to enshrine under the solid mass of its masonry some reputed relic of the Enlightened One. The protection that the massive dome and its bases were intended to afford to the bone fragment or other relic of the Buddha had failed, as at almost all Stupas of the Frontier, to save the sacred deposit from spoliation; for greedy hands, probably long ago, had cut through the south-eastern side of the Stupa and tunnelled right down the centre to discover and abstract what small articles of precious metal, gems or the like, might have been placed as a votive deposit with the relic. (see page 19, here, emphasis mine)

In other words, these so-called "domes," (note Stein's quotes, which you have turned into italics) or stupas, are solid masses of masonry which have been tunneled right down their centers. Obviously, these are not hollow upper hemispheres. See the lead sentence of Dome, "A dome (from Latin: domus) is an architectural element that resembles the hollow upper half of a sphere." How do you square this? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS Please also change the publication date of the book from 1974 to 1929 (see here). Whether a 90-year-old travelogue counts for a reliable source today is not clear. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the stupa is different from vihara, its the dome of vihara the author is talking about, i have also posted second link which clearly states double domed monument, you can go to youtube and verify yourself and whether its a dome or not by typing its name. Hammy0007 (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removing pre Islamic dome citations[edit]

Frowler, please dont impose your Islamic BS on every article, i have already cited multiple sources that domes were present in Indian subcontinent/ South Asia before Islamic intrusion, Gumbatona vihara is the very example, i have also cited other examples of kafirkot, amaravathi, and even an archaeological survey of india report on dome at Kausambi palace, if you again try to remove these cited references, i will now take matters to the admins, you have vandalised Kurta article according to your will, please dont repeat your agenda here. Hammy0007 (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hammy0007, I crossed out one of the above term, please try to be respectful. I know it is hard against Fowler, but, please wait. I am trying to get other users to see Fowlers POV pushing. Please be diplomatic. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]
thanks Highpeaks35, much appreciated. Hammy0007 (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hammy0007, anytime, greatly appreciate your understanding. I am waiting for My Lord's recommendation. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Earnest request[edit]

I request that I be allowed to edit in peace, and not have text removed which has been sourced to:

  • Asher, Catherine (1992), Architecture of Mughal India, Cambridge University Press, pp. 257–, ISBN 978-0-521-26728-1
  • Tarlow, Sarah (editor); Stutz, Liv Nilsson (editor) (6 June 2013), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Death and Burial, Oxford University Press, pp. 246–, ISBN 978-0-19-165039-0 {{citation}}: |first1= has generic name (help)
  • Heitzman, James (2008), The City in South Asia, Routledge, pp. 75–, ISBN 978-1-134-28963-9
  • Dandekar, Deepra; Tschacher, Torsten (2016), Islam, Sufism and Everyday Politics of Belonging in South Asia, Taylor & Francis, pp. 232–, ISBN 978-1-317-43596-9
  • Suvorova, Anna (2004), Muslim Saints of South Asia: The Eleventh to Fifteenth Centuries, Routledge, pp. 57–, ISBN 978-1-134-37006-1
  • Avari, Burjor (2013), Islamic Civilization in South Asia: A History of Muslim Power and Presence in the Indian Subcontinent, Routledge, pp. 118–, ISBN 978-0-415-58061-8

I have begun again, starting with Encyclopedia Britannica article on "Dome," and will add material from Stuart Tappin's "Structural development of masonry domes in India which has already figured prominently in this article.

It is important to emphasize that this article is really about true domes (i.e. masonry hemispheres whose design principles have evolved from the arch), not mounds, or stupas, or rock cut vaults, which, wondrous though they may be, are less advanced technologically. Indeed, Mohenjo-daro had a "stupa." It is a sad commentary on Wikipedia that such sources are being held at ransom by misinterpretations of Aurel Stein's description of solid masonry stupas and viharas in his 1929 travelogue, or references to pictures and youtube videos. Pinging @RegentsPark:, @Johnbod:, and also @Kautilya3: who is knowledgeable about sourcing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me - you should perhaps be aware, if you aren't already, that there is some similar argy-bargy going on at Architecture of India over ancient Indian arches. It seems there are some ancient true arches in India, mostly Buddhist, but they then stopped for many centuries, replaced by lintels, until Islam arrived. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
your sources simply contradict the evidences of domes in SA, the double dome is clearly present in Gumbatona vihara, so there is no reason for it to be imported from central asia, i suggest you to keep article as it is and stop being in denial and using western sources to prove your point as you always do. The article clearly contradicts with your intro and the evidences of true domes present in the history below. Hammy0007 (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Johnbod:I had seen that a few days ago, before your input, and thinking it was still in the same state, removed it, before reverting. Apologies. Yeah, don't know what to make of the Mahabodhi, repaired as it was many times by the Burmese kings, before the early ASI enthusiasts had taken pictures of the nearly gutted temple in the 1860s. Today, it is more of a testament to British restoration, if not outright reconstruction, Sri Lankan advocacy (not to mention donation of the sapling from a fifth or sixth generation Bodhi tree from Kandy, which had long disappeared in India, for replanting at Gaya) and Burmese design (from the blueprints of the 12th century Mahabodhi at Pagan. (I'm sure you know about this already.) The votive models of the temple made for purchase by ancient Buddhist pilgrims or tourists were commonly found buried in the Gaya countryside, and during early British times, being worshipped by the clueless Shaivite Gayans as lingams in their home temples. That history is too tangled, in my humble opinion, and the revisionists too fired up. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring note 1: Hammy0007, has reverted all my edits with edit summary, "Sorry bro, im removing your sources simply because the assumption of your sources that domes didn't exist before the muslims, is simply not true, that assumption directly contradicts the evidences" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a ds notice on their page. Hammy0007, if this continues, you will be subject to, at a minimum, a topic ban on South Asia architectural articles. --regentspark (comment) 16:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring note 2: As @Highpeaks35: had removed my edits which had earlier been restored by Johnbod, and offered the rationale of WP:STATUSQUO, I have now reverted the article to the state it was in before Hammy, then an IP, had made his edits. It is the state before either he or I had made our edits to the article. The version can be seen here. I am also restoring Template:Dome architecture to its STATUSQUO, which both Highpeaks35 and Hammy has changed earlier Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A useful reference, hot off the press is: Ray, Aniruddha (2019), The Sultanate of Delhi (1206-1526): Polity, Economy, Society and Culture, Taylor & Francis, pp. 385–6, ISBN 978-1-00-000729-9

The technology of building palaces and big houses had come to India along with the establishment of the Sultanate at Delhi whose example could be seen in the arches and domes. This foreign feature is connected within the evolution of the construction of houses. 'The construction of making a true arch was not unknown in ancient India but its use was very limited. The ancient Indian architects used stones in making arches when the arch had a definite measurement If such measurement was not there they would use earth and wood to make the arch. Much space could be kept in a high arch made with big stone. But a true arch, dome and a tapering bow like roof could only be made with brick. It was not known in the pre-Sultanate period that brick was necessary to make such structures. The consolidation of brick with lime and rubble had come to India with the Muslims. Its use could not be found earlier."

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV issue[edit]

In South Asia, construction was almost entirely post and lintel, or trabeate, until the arrival of Muslims from Central Asia in the 12th century.[2] Architectural know-how for building true arches and domes, and bricklaying techniques for switching from rectangular bases to spherical domes came to South Asia from Central Asia.[2] More sophisticated considerations employed in building double domes or placing a domed building within a particular landscape came from Central Asia and Persia.[2]

i think that this article in this way will become contradictory, evidence and the info below the article clearly states that domes, arches and vaulting was known to the indians in pre islamic periods, but senior members are using their seniority and pushing some sources which will push late dating for indian architecture element of arch, vault and domes

This biased activity of some senior members will only push some agenda and confirmation bias, it will not help in gaining any info on indian architecture history itself.

i have edited and added info on this article to make it much more informative, but the activity of some senior members has always been destructive and negative and restrictive which is anything constructive for the indian history, probably for persian or central history but centrally not indian or south asian history. This is nothing but anti-indian chauvinism.Hammy0007 (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammy0007: you're not helping yourself here with this talk about senior members and "destructive" and "negative". If you're in a dispute, please read WP:DR for what options are available to you. If you continue with this negative tone, you will be topic banned and will be unable to give any input at all.--regentspark (comment) 17:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
why do you not resolve this dispute mate? are you only here to warn me? Hammy0007 (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, read WP:DR on how to resolve a dispute. I'm merely warning you in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator. (I notice you're new here. You might want to take a moment to figure out how editing on wikipedia works). --regentspark (comment) 17:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the section heading. Let's concentrate on issues, not editors unless problems are much more serious. User:Hammy0007, please read and follow WP:AGF. Doug Weller talk 15:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change name to History of Indo-Islamic domes[edit]

@Hammy0007, Johnbod, RegentsPark, Anupam, and Kautilya3:, this article as it stands now seems to be a subsection of Indo-Islamic architecture. Let me know what is your thoughts on changing the title to History of Indo-Islamic domes. The article is about Medieval and Early modern domes influenced by Indo-Islamic architecture, notable of Delhi Sultanate, Mughal Empire, and Deccan sultanates; and these domes are part and parcel of Indo-Islamic architecture. History of Indo-Islamic domes meets WP:RS. Being modern geopolitics, i.e. "South Asia", or originally "South Asian domes", is WP:OR. The vast majority of WP:RS supports these domes as being part of Indo-Islamic architecture, as such, History of Indo-Islamic domes is most appropriate. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

  • Oppose Yes, most of the domes in South Asia are Islamic or later modern ones (perhaps neglected here at present), but that doesn't justify a name change. No doubt we will eventually arrive at something agreed on pre-Islamic domes. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, this article is not about pre-Islamic domes or modern domes. There are few WP:RS for pre-Islamic domes. Unless we take out "history", modern domes do not apply here. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Oh really, when does "history" stop? Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, you don't have to be fresh. This article is not about modern domes. It is clearly about Indo-Islamic domes in Medieval and Early modern periods. The Domes article is more than enough to mention modern domes in the Indian subcontinent and broader South Asia. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Hammy0007, thanks for understanding. Hopefully, this discussion continues in a respectful manner. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Quote

Never was the principle of the arch with radiating components, such as voussoirs and keystones, employed in Hindu structures, either in India or in other parts of Asia. It was not so much that Hindu architects were ignorant of these techniques, but rather that conformance to tradition and adherence to precedents were firm cultural attitudes. Arched niches, where found, are created on the surface of a wall or tower and rarely carry loads from above as in the true arch. This also means that Hindu temple architecture provides no instance of the use of the vault or the dome. It is only the corbelled structural device that is used, always in its non-arched form, to create the interiors of temples and the stone shells of the super-structures that its above the sanctuary. The preference of Hindu architects is for massiveness and strength in temple construction through the post and beam method.

As for Buddhist architecture, I'm still trying to figure out.The stupas are clearly solid masonry domes, and not true domes, which are hollow upper hemispheres, whose architectural principle has evolved from an arch. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark, please see above. Fowler&fowler attacked me before, by accusing me of "relentlessly stuffing Hinduism-Buddhism-promotion nonsense everywhere"; which I clearly did not, per the diffs. Now, the user is using rudimentary Hindu-Buddhist domes to oppose the title change. If this clearly does not show this user is just opposing me on everything for spite and to bully, I don't know what is. How is this allowed? (Highpeaks35 (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]
I was merely paraphrasing George Michell, who is quoted above (from page 84 of his book), but who also says on page 83:
Quote

"Factors of functional engineering principle never really played a part in the evolution of Hindu temple architecture. The pillar-lintel-corbel scheme of construction is at the root of all Hindu temple building operations and other structural principles such as the cantilever and the dome are only of the most rudimentary nature. Thus, the fixture of the eave which projects from the wall, and which involves the cantilever principle, never develops any true structural application in the Hindu architectural context. Arrangements of internal ceilings are also deliberately confined to the overlapping of one stone course with another or, alternatively, to the laying of diagonal and square stone courses to produce designs with rotating and diminishing squares (Fig. 34)."

I hope this helps. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not. You went on personal attack against me as a Wikipedian and my character. Thankfully, RP was able to see through your false accusations. Your dishonesty is not acceptable. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 03:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]
the guy has been behaving sectarian and im not really surprised how his sectarian driven comments and edits have been let go. Hammy0007 (talk) 03:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a report published directly by archaeological survey of India and mentions construction of true domes in Kausambi palace, how do you classify the palace of kausambi, is it a hindu architecture, buddhist architecture or a muslim architecture?

Of all the structural Phases, the last one is particularly noteworthy. A vast net-work of underground chambers and the superstructure in the three blocks and the galleries were found to be built on the principle of true arch. The arches showed different varieties, the four centred pointed arch for spanning narrow passages and segmental arch for wider areas.The last structural Phase, wherein no N.B.P. Ware was recorded, can be dated to circa first-second century A.D.The underground chambers existed in all the three blocks. The plan of the base-ment closely followed that of the main hall and the adjoining rooms. The arched roof of the underground chamber was found to be 2.59 m. high. The arch of the passage was of the four-centred pointed type (pl. LXXX B).In the eastern block there were three underground chambers, access to the two western ones being provided through the eastern gallery. The collapsed arch of the extreme eastern chamber was found to be very well preserved.In the western block too, there was evidence for two underground chambers with access from the western gallery. Although the roof of the chamber was found almost completely destroyed, the arches on the passages were well-preserved (pl. LXXXI B).The superstructure in the central and eastern blocks was found to be collapsed. From a study of the remnants, it can be inferred that they formed part of a dome that adorned the building. The entire superstructure in the different blocks and galleries collapsed on a layer of ash, about 5 cm. in thickness, indicating that the palace was destroyed by an extensive conflagration.

. NDIAN ARCHAEOLOGY 1961-62-A REVIEWHammy0007 (talk) 03:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ASI reports are not peer-reviewed, and considered primary sources. Consequently, they cannot be used in Wikipedia. This volume has Google scholar citation index 4, i.e. in the nearly 60 years since its publication, it has been cited only four times by scholars. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
are you trying to say the report is reviewed or not, because you yourself has given the proof of four scholarly reviews, secondly no where it states that primary sources cannot be cited in the link you have given, it pretty much says the opposite.
secondly what is your comment on kausambi palace, is it hindu architecture, buddhist architecture or an islamic architecture? Hammy0007 (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hammy0007: Those are not reviews, only references in other articles. Moreover, as ASI reports cover a large subject area, these four publications are in the fields of (i) palaeontological record of hominids of South Asia, (ii) glass making techniques, (iii) pre-history of Himachal Pradesh, and (iv) South Indian coins. None have any bearing on architecture, let alone on domes and arches. That means the citations are to other reports in the volume, not to the one you have quoted from, whose citation index is in effect 0. Again, it is a primary source, which is not peer-reviewed either as a pre-requisite of publication, or more formally after publication. Its citation index after 60 years of publication is only 4 for the entire volume, and 0 for the article. Contrast that with Michell's book I have cited above. It Google scholar citation index is 258 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article as it now stands is little more than a stub and the article name should not be changed to reflect its current state. The broader geographic scope of "South Asia" is the safest characterization of the area of focus when keeping in mind that most of the topic has yet to be fleshed out. It is not original research to use that term; it is one of many used in reliable sources and in my opinion was the most neutral and least prejudiced toward the eventual scope of a more complete article. Here, for example, is a good source that uses the term (and also includes significant information on pre-islamic domes beginning on page 123): Crossing Lines: Architecture in Early Islamic South Asia. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And (note to self) - Rowland, 172-174 on Bamiyan lantern roofs. Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article of Meister is a little hard to understand (for me), but what about his book, Temples of the Indus? I would imagine it has some relevant material, but I can't access it online. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

reinstating pre islamic material[edit]

reinstating preislamic topic, i will not let some members have a free buffet on this topic and do as they wish here. I have moved contradictory sources which is negating the very historic evidence provided below so if they want their content they can have it in the section below. I request other senior members to intervene and solve this deadlock. I will not have some members dictate their Islamic or persian, central asian hitory dictate this Indian history topic here, although i myself am a muslim. A lot of times these sources have been used to massacre indian history topics else where as well, while archaeological and historic sources are pretty evident. Hammy0007 (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hammy0007, Please see my proposal on your talk page. What do you think? (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Better check out WP:POVFORK. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CFORK at History of domes in India?[edit]

@Highpeaks35: It looks like your new article History of domes in India is a fork of this one, with large amounts of unattributed copied text, and a questionable need for such a fork to exist. WP:SPINOUT does not appear necessary at this point. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 03:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hydronium Hydroxide, this article itself is in a very poor state. Let's develop both articles. Merger can come later if deemed needed. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]
While you're probably right about the state of the article (the chronology of the lead seems suspect if there was pre-Islamic dome construction...), if you're forking for the purpose of avoiding or winning a dispute, that's the wrong way to do things; that may mean painful item-by-item agreement and WP:3O, but better than trying to reconcile divergent POV articles.
Only have limited time in the near future, but here's a starter suggestion: modern day countries should only be used where something is defined as having been constructed in a historical state/empire/region (such as "in XXXX (near modern YYY, country)" or in XXXX (now YYY, country)"), or where the modern country (essentially) existed at the time. So the Pakistan section should not exist as is, and its content should fold into sections by period as relevant. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 04:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hydronium Hydroxide: I agree. The "Pakistan" section was already in the article, a feature of its past before the dispute began. I was going to fold it into the sections, either those of historical periods, or of dynasties, but before I could do so, I was reverted. The governing naming principle in the articles I tend to work on is: do not use anything that references modern nationalities. Therefore, "South Asia" is preferred to "Indian subcontinent" in the name of historical (pre-1947) topics. "Indian subcontinent" is OK in geophysical topics, especially when referencing regions east of the Indus river. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually many of what early domes there are in SA tend not be in the modern Republic of India. The meaning of a "true arch" is generally agreed, but I don't think there is an equivalent clear definition of a "true dome", which is partly why we are getting into heavy mud here. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod has made my point much more clearly. I was attempting to make the somewhat obscure point that many of these temples are in the Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP) of Pakistan, now called Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, which lies to the west of the Indus. If one thinks of the Indian subcontinent geophysically, i.e. an old name for the Indian tectonic plate, whose northwestern boundary is defined by the Indus, then these temples are not even on the subcontinent. (Obscure point 2: the Himalayas, formed by the uplifting of Eurasia by the northeastern movement of the Indian plate, define not only the northern limits of the subcontinent, but also the northwestern and northeastern. Two rivers, the Indus and the Brahmaputra, both rising in Tibet, one flowing west, the other east, have major bends at the two so-called anchors of the Himalayas, the Indus at Nanga Parbat and the Brahmaputra at Namcha Barwa. The Indus thereafter flows south by southwest, with NWFP lying to its right (i.e. west).) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod: interesting point about true domes. I don't know much about this topic, but a search did turn up many sentences of the type, "... is not a true dome," but little clear definition of the true dome. Although, at least on a circular base, I don't see why the common definition of the arch cannot be extended: i.e. use voussoirs that are tapered along four sides, arrange them horizontally in any of the common stable masonry bonds (say Flemish), creating bends horizontally and vertically. Finally, cap with a "keystone," a disc, tapered in from the outside, which will close a small hole at the top. But I grant I may have missed something, and that there are other ways to do this. Also, the voussoirs would not all be the same size, they will decrease in size as you move up, requiring extraordinary mathematical precision. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS Though this is common knowledge to the experts, I just saw the terminology section of Dome, which says, "'True' domes are said to be those whose structure is in a state of compression, with constituent elements of wedge-shaped voussoirs, the joints of which align with a central point. The validity of this is unclear, as domes built underground with corbelled stone layers are also in compression from the surrounding earth." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Our dome begins "A dome (from Latin: domus) is an architectural element that resembles the hollow upper half of a sphere. The precise definition has been a matter of controversy. There are also a wide variety of forms and specialized terms to describe them." which seems right to me. Many of the most famous, like the Pantheon have a hole in the middle, so nothing like a keystone. One of the sources linked above points out, I think correctly, that domes are most easily made out of brick, which most of India didn't use for temples. Of course Bengal does, and has a wide range of highly fancy curved roof types, I'm not sure from how early. The main difficulty is often how to support the half-built dome during construction. The shikara can of course be thought of as a stretched dome, though internally the structure is I think always invisible, shut off by a low ceiling; Hindu architecture apparently had no interest in that effect, so important to the West and Islam, where architects always want to show off the interior view, even if it is a lower false dome. I've added a bit on the lantern roof, one Buddhist Indian type of "domical structure". I think some shikaras are built like this. Unfortunately I can't yet find a pic on Commons. Johnbod (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks. Your wood lantern roof for achieving hemispherical structure seems like a continuous version of the "corbelled stone layers" in the definition I quote above, at least in the presence of external horizontal compression, for example in underground domes, or domes of inner sanctums in above ground construction. I don't know if the ones in NWFP are of this corbeled variety, as they seem to be made with stone. ... Anyway, I think I've reached the limit of my allowance for talk page OR, for my entry level of knowledge.  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_domes_in_South_Asia&oldid=1219236978"